The quick escalation of the health issue, specifically, the management of the COVID-19 epidemic and its quick rise to the scale of a pandemic have defined the further choice of government policies. The focus on controlling the spread of the disease, at the same time increasing awareness among the target population members and convincing them to accept the danger as a real one have been prioritized. However, despite the efforts of the U.S. government authorities, the measures undertaken so far seem to have been failing given the spike in the number of people developing the symptoms of COVID-19, as well as the mortality rates among the infected population. Therefore, the discussion of the policy and the role that the government plays in controlling citizens and its own actions, is long overdue. Despite the attempts at safeguarding its citizens, the U.S. government has ben failing miserably with the establishment of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act due to the lack of control over the attitudes and behaviors of citizens and the efficacy of its own actions.
The observed tragic trend meets the expectations set by James Madison in his famous statement in Federalist. To trace the causes of the problem, one will need to consider the mechanisms of policymaking. When creating productive and effective policies, one needs to bear in mind that most people are very flawed and lacking awareness and that regulations and policies are also designed and implemented by fallible human beings. Remarkably, the quotation above also discloses the controversial nature of policies, possibly implying that the creation of an impeccable regulation followed by every citizen is impossible. By establishing the fact that people are prone to making mistakes and lapses in judgment, Madison suggests that no policy will ever be effective enough to reach the expected objectives and deliver the required results, attaining the 100% rates of compliance.
Moreover, Madison’s argument can also be interpreted as the impossibility of reaching complete understanding between the intentions of the government and the response of the citizens. Indeed, if policies are meant to be designed by people with inherent flaws, misconceptions, and even prejudices that will meddle with their ability to introduce unbiased regulations, the threat of citizens failing to comply with the said policies either intentionally or from a genuine place of misunderstanding will always exist. The latter presumption proves particularly correct when considering how the CARES policy for managing the pandemic of coronavirus has been handled and received.
The observations above do not imply that the CARES policy was completely inefficient or pointless; quite the contrary, there are numerous indications of its positive effects on the well-being and the overall health management rates within the American community. Specifically, the recent study on the subject at hand has shown that the introduction of the CARES act has contributed to the increase in the accessibility of care. However, the specified effects still exist largely in theory since the CARES Act has not been fully implemented, and the scope of its effects has not yet reached the size that allows making long-lasting judgments concerning the efficacy of the policy and the extent to which the government has managed to embrace the needs of every single group within the U.S. community.
The existing data also shows that Madison’s assumptions prove to be disastrously correct for the current policies regarding the issue of COVID-19, namely, the CARES regulation. In its nature, the act was supposed to safeguard the rights of vulnerable groups first. The specified denizens of the U.S. population should have included the indigenous population primarily, as the CARES Act clarifies. However, when considering the implications of the specified policy, one will realize that the policy was significantly mismanaged due to the lack of awareness about the needs of marginalized groups and vulnerable populations, specifically, indigenous people.
In addition, the fact that the current policy fails to acknowledge the tensions within the relationships between the U.S. authorities and the indigenous populations of North America also warrants discussion. According to van Dorn, Cooney, and Sabin, “The deep history of injustice by the US government towards these people means that the US response will be looked on with suspicion.” Therefore, the policy in question demonstrates Madison’s argument and proves it in its entirety, pointing to the fact that the lack of control over the population and the management of its needs, leads to a drastic failure of a policy. Drastically low levels of awareness among government members concerning the said needs have also contributed to the poor design and implementation of the policy.
Overall, the problem of reconciling democracy, political power, and the extent to which the government is willing to represent its population and the opportunities that it takes to exert its power can be seen in the CARES policy. Although the U.S. government has a plethora of opportunities for studying the needs of vulnerable groups and the existing opportunities for meeting the needs in question, the range of steps that the U.S. authorities have taken so far appears to be insufficient for safeguarding the specified groups. Specifically, although offering a semblance of support, the CARES Act leaves indigenous American groups vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic by leaving the level of access comparatively low for the specified communities.
In turn, the CARES Act has also proven the second part of the assumption made by Madison, namely, the idea that policies re always doomed to be mismanaged at least slightly due to incompliance among general audiences. The CARES Act is one of the most recent examples of the specified argument as the extent of readiness with which people are likely to approach the requirements set in the CARES Act are very low presently. The observed issue can be explained from the perspective of trust, or, to be more accurate, the lack thereof, between the government and the citizens. As a result of misinformation in social media, as well as the government’s failed attempt at controlling the spread of false data, a large portion of U.S. citizens has been misinformed, which can be seen as a major failure of the policy in question.
Madison’s argument about the need to establish tighter control standards, particularly, in regard to ensuring the awareness of the government and the compliance of the population, is doubtless. Although there are multiple nuances to the specified argument, as the case of meeting the needs of native representatives of the American population has shown, the general concept of creating an effective communication channel remains a viable solution to the problem. Consequently, Madison’s statement concerning the problem of control within the existing governmental structures, including the external and internal controlling issues, remain viable even in the present-day settings, as the case of CARES Act as the tool for managing COVID-19 shows.
The issue that Madison addresses, namely, the reconciliation of the huge amount of power that political figures hold and the necessity for them to act on the principles of democracy can be managed by introducing a greater range of control over the choices that the said state authorities make. Namely, the public involvement in the political agenda and the development of policies needs to be increased.
The issue of transparency as one of the main premises for addressing Madison’s dilemma also needs to be discussed. Although James Madison was entirely correct in his assumption that the government lacked the control over citizens, as well as over its own actions and decisions, as the recent policy regarding the COVID-019 issue has shown, there are still some strategies that can potentially help in addressing the concern in question. Specifically the reinforcement of transparency in regard to the choices that the state authorities make and the motivations behind the said actions will have to be made available to the public.
The issue of representation is another key problem that has led to the confirmation of Madison’s argument, as the CARES Act has indicated. Namely, the inconsistent dialogue between the U.S. government and the Native ethnic groups has led to the poor implementation of the policy and the failure to manage the health-related needs of the said vulnerable populations. The issue of health literacy, specifically, its low rates, and the lack of access to services such as tests for coronavirus have been affecting the well-being of Native ethnic groups in the U.S. severely. Therefore, in accordance with Madison’s theory, the dialogue between the government and the specified populations needs to be established so that the latter could be represented properly and that their needs could be met. As a result, the future policy for managing the issue of COVID-19 and providing the American population with the needed services will be handled with greater success.
However, it would be a mistake to presume that the issue of failing to embrace the needs of the target groups is completely unsolvable. Though taking every minute detail into account is barely possible, the U.S. government could collect more data on the factors that lead to reduced access to healthcare services for vulnerable groups, primarily, native Americans and other indigenous cultures. It is believed that high poverty levels and low extent of healthcare literacy are the primary causes of the observed phenomenon; however, further research into the subject matter will still be required. Remarkably, the opportunities for improved communication that the recent technological innovations have provided could be used to address the problem outlined by Madison in his famous statement. By including innovative tools for the promotion of mass health literacy and the eradication of COVID-related myths, the U.S. government will be able to increase the levels of compliance with the improved policy aimed at safeguarding the well-being of U.S. citizens.
With the introduction of the measures described above, the dilemma described by Madison will be resolved, at least, in the context of the current coronavirus crisis and the CARES Act. Thus, the assumption that the government policies will always remain inherently flawed will be proven wrong. However, until then, the argument posited by Madison and implying that the government’s decisions and policies will be inevitably misaligned with the needs of the population due to the lack of information and the presence of self-interest will remain true.
Bibliography
- Boccia, Romina, Lindsey Burke, PhD, David R. Burton, Rachel Greszler, Adam Michel, Norbert J. Michel, PhD, Jude Schwalbach, Parker Sheppard, PhD, and Paul Winfree, “Congress Should Focus on Pandemic Control and Fix the CARES Act for an Economic Rebound,” Institute for Economic Freedom, vol. 3484, 2020, pp. 1-14.
- Colenda, Christopher C., William B. Applegate, Burton V. Reifler, and Dan G. Blazer, II, “COVID-19: Financial Stress Test for Academic Medical Centers.” Academic Medicine, vol. 95, no. 6, 2020, pp. 1-11.
- Erwin, Cheryl, Julie Aultman, Tom Harter, Judy Illes and Rabbi Claudio J. Kogan. “Rural and Remote Communities: Unique Ethical Issues in the COVID-19 Pandemic.” The American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 1, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1-8.
- King, Jaime S. “Covid-19 and the Need for Health Care Reform.” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 1, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1-10.
- Maier, Charles S., and Ian Kumekawa. “Responding to COVID-19: Think through the Analogy of War.” Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics White Paper, vol. 10, 2020, pp. 1-18.
- Vaccaro, Alexander R., Charles L. Getz, Bruce E. Cohen, Brian J. Cole and Chester J. Donnally, III, “Practice Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, vol. 1, no. 2230, 2020, pp. 1-12.
- Van Dorn, Aaron, Rebecca E. Cooney, and Miriam L. Sabin. “COVID-19 exacerbating inequalities in the US.” The Lancet, vol. 395, no. 10232, 2020, pp. 1243-1244.